From In re Guardianship of J.H., decided today by the New Hampshire Supreme Court (in an opinion by Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi):
J.H. is a six-year-old child. His father has been incarcerated since December 2017 and has a history of criminal charges involving domestic violence and drug possession. J.H.'s mother died in 2019 when J.H. was less than three years old. His grandmother was appointed guardian of J.H.'s person and estate shortly thereafter, and J.H. has remained in her care since.
The guardian and the father have been at odds throughout this case. When the guardianship petition was filed, the father was subject to a no-contact order barring communications with J.H. Subsequently, the father sought contact and visitation with J.H. Over the guardian's objections, the court ordered that the father could communicate with J.H. by mail and eventually progress to video visits. Both parties have accused the other of violating the court's orders. Adding to the conflict, the guardian has petitioned to terminate the father's parental rights. In an April 2022 order, the court expressed its frustration that "[d]espite [J.H.'s] tragic young life that has seen him lose both of his parents before his third birthday, both sides of [J.H.'s] extended family are not able to put their differences aside and cooperate for [J.H.'s] benefit."
The court placed restrictions on both parties, including limiting the content of father's communications with J.H. The court also imposed restrictions on the guardian. In an October 2022 order, the court ordered that the guardian and her husband "are enjoined from testifying against father's release at any parole or similar hearing without first seeking leave of this court." The guardian moved for reconsideration, arguing that this restriction violated her right to freedom of speech. The court denied her motion, reasoning that "[J.H.'s] best interests outweigh the guardian['s] free speech rights to keep father incarcerated if he becomes eligible for a parole hearing."
The order wasn't authorized by New Hampshire statutes, the court held, and thus avoided the need to decide whether the order also violated the First Amendment (as I think it did):
